Unregistered, as a new member your first 5 posts will be subject to moderation.
So if your post is submitted successfully, but does not show up immediately, please be patient, as it may take some time for a moderator to approve it.
Please don't double post.

As I sit here, basting in paint remover fumes from an over-zealous landlord trying to sterilize the walls of the first floor, I cant help but wonder why a blank, beige wall is better than the tags that were previously there.

I live in a neighborhood that is not the greatest so street art is everywhere. I personally like it, even the sloppy tags, it all adds something to walking down the streets.

There's huge double standards when it comes to street art and I feel like people refuse to see it as a legitimate form of expression.

What do you think when you see graffiti or street art?

__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."

It's usually really ugly and poorly executed, so I generally hate it. Once in a great while I will see something that is clever or well-done by someone talented, and I can admire the creativity, but it still is vandalizing someone's property and that just isn't right. If you pay a mortgage on a building, you don't want some idiot coming along and wrecking it with paint. If a landlord commissions it, that's fine, but it is still usually pretty ugly even then.

I tend to agree.
There is an artist from Hawaii. Waylan. I love his work.
But, they commissioned a piece by him for a wall downtown where I live-GOD AWFUL!
I don't like any of the "wall art" downtown. Its terrible.

It's usually really ugly and poorly executed, so I generally hate it. Once in a great while I will see something that is clever or well-done by someone talented, and I can admire the creativity, but it still is vandalizing someone's property and that just isn't right. If you pay a mortgage on a building, you don't want some idiot coming along and wrecking it with paint. If a landlord commissions it, that's fine, but it is still usually pretty ugly even then.

That's part of where I think the double standard is (not with you specifically but with the idea that you're vandalizing someone's property and that makes street art wrong).

There are giant billboards along virtually every street in the country. It's virtually impossible to escape these monolithic images. I dislike them, they very clearly have an impact on the public, and they're often on public property. Yet no one really seems to want to decry them as being blights.

Why is it acceptable to have a giant advertisement on a public street but not street art?

As far as it being ugly, I agree that there's a lot of pieces I really dislike but I prefer to see tags that I may like not rather than plain walls or advertisements.

__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."

There are giant billboards along virtually every street in the country. It's virtually impossible to escape these monolithic images. I dislike them, they very clearly have an impact on the public, and they're often on public property. Yet no one really seems to want to decry them as being blights.

You either haven't been paying attention, or are too young to realize that there have been many protests against billboards through the years, in lots of places. Plenty of towns and counties all over the country have ordinances that do not allow advertising billboards (and/or neon signs). There was a huge outcry against American Apparel's billboard on Houston Street in NYC a few years ago - it was vulgar, sexist, and gigantic, and people protested it quite loudly. I think someone even vandalized it! Sometimes billboards are taken down if enough people complain.

Of course, in many locations and situations, billboards can be a blight. Just because they are commissioned and paid for, common sense will tell you that it doesn't mean everyone's happy about them all the time. Do a little research in online news archives for some history. Billboards can be provocative, crass, and/or block people's views of the scenery beyond. Of course not everyone likes them. But many billboard advertisements have made a positive impression and become part of popular culture. They are also used for public service announcements, not just ads.

Graffiti is just vandalism of someone's private property or government property -- and even if it looks good, it's still vandalism, unlawful, and costs the property owners or municipalities lots of money to remove it, just to satisfy the graffiti "artist's" own arrogant need to get away with something they know they shouldn't be doing. Those people are no better than then fare jumpers. They act so entitled and oppressed, but they are taking liberties with things that don't belong to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helo

Why is it acceptable to have a giant advertisement on a public street but not street art?

Graffiti and street art aren't always the same thing. But street art is acceptable if it isn't going against the law to be there.

You either haven't been paying attention, or are too young to realize that there have been many protests against billboards through the years, in many places. Many places don't allow them, or neon signs. There was a huge outcry against American Apparel's billboard on Houston Street in NYC a few years ago - it was vulgar, sexist, and gigantic, and people protested it quite loudly. I think someone even vandalized it! Sometimes billboards are taken down if enough people complain.

Of course, in many locations and situations, billboards can be a blight. Just because they are commissioned and paid for, common sense will tell you that it doesn't mean everyone's happy about them all the time. Do a little research in online news archives for some history. Billboards can be provocative, crass, and/or block people's views of the scenery beyond. Of course not everyone likes them. But many billboard advertisements have made a positive impression and become part of popular culture. They are also used for public service announcements, not just ads.

I'm aware of the outcry against them, I'm also aware that nobody who can do anything about it seems to care.

Street art is taken as a "gateway crime" and a symbol of all that's bad and criminal about a neighborhood. Nobody in authority comes out and blames billboards for being a symbol of the over-commercialization of our society or or rampant consumerism, there are precious few op-eds that call for all ads to be removed from public view and no municipality provides support to citizens who want to remove advertising they dislike.

Quote:

Graffiti is just vandalism of someone's private property or government property -- and even if it looks good, it's still vandalism, unlawful, and costs the property owners or municipalities lots of money to remove it, just to satisfy the graffiti "artist's" own arrogant need to get away with something they know they shouldn't be doing. Those people are no better than then fare jumpers. They act so entitled and oppressed, but they are taking liberties with things that don't belong to them.

Malware and adware are vandalism of private property as well, we know who's doing it, and yet again I see no outcry from elected officials that there is a blight. Companies that participate in and fund these activities are plainly apparent, their NAME is in the ads this software spawns onto your machine, yet I see no serious effort to eradicate it from those who have the ability to do so.

Instead, I see millions being poured into vandal units in police departments, graffiti removal teams, graffiti-proof coatings on surfaces, and anti-street art propaganda spun from all corners.

And in the case of property that is in the public domain, why is there a need to remove it? The public placed the art there, why does it need to be removed?

Quote:

Graffiti and street art aren't always the same thing. But street art is acceptable if it isn't going against the law to be there.

Why does a work's legal status effect its right to survive? There's wonderful art across the world that is considered illegal by the government of where it was created, should that art also be destroyed because it violates the law?

__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."

And in the case of property that is in the public domain, why is there a need to remove it? The public placed the art there, why does it need to be removed?

What kind of property is in the public domain? Most property belongs to either a private person or a government entity. Even a public park has some entity in charge of its care and upkeep. Someone pays for mowing grass and repairing sidewalks, usually the taxpayers, through the municipality, but sometimes a cooperative organization. There are budgets and funding to make the public property accessible and safe for everyone, and rules that get made for maintaining such upkeep. It isn't free or cheap to maintain property, so why do vandals think they are entitled to leave their spraypaint on it?

Sure, some of it looks good but if a person is stupid enough to leave their creation on something where it is not allowed to be, then they take a chance that it will be destroyed. There was a huge tower erected in a community garden in the East Village, made out of bits and pieces of junk, and it was torn down because it was considered unsafe. People were upset because they said it was art, but the creator of it didn't want to find a private location and pay to move it somewhere else, so away it goes. I had a wonderful art teacher once who said, "Never treat your art as too precious." Sometimes it has a short lifespan. So what? The world keeps spinning. Ask permission to do it first, and then put your graffiti up in an honest way, but there is a reason that graffiti artists scurry away like thieves trying not to get caught.

What kind of property is in the public domain? Most property belongs to either a private person or a government entity. Even a public park has some entity in charge of its care and upkeep. Someone pays for mowing grass and repairing sidewalks, usually the taxpayers, through the municipality, but sometimes a cooperative organization. There are budgets and funding to make the public property accessible and safe for everyone, and rules that get made for maintaining such upkeep. It isn't free or cheap to maintain property, so why do vandals think they are entitled to leave their spraypaint on it?

Public property is exactly what the name says; property that is owned by the public. It may be actively cared for by a government or other organization but the actual owners of the property are considered to be the public. Sidewalks are an example of this.

It gets a lot cheaper when you arent shelling out thousands to constantly paint a building to maintain the process of gentrification and the illusion that people try to create with a clean facade.

Quote:

Sure, some of it looks good but if a person is stupid enough to leave their creation on something where it is not allowed to be, then they take a chance that it will be destroyed. There was a huge tower erected in a community garden in the East Village, made out of bits and pieces of junk, and it was torn down because it was considered unsafe. People were upset because they said it was art, but the creator of it didn't want to find a private location and pay to move it somewhere else, so away it goes. I had a wonderful art teacher once who said, "Never treat your art as too precious." Sometimes it has a short lifespan. So what? The world keeps spinning. Ask permission to do it first, and then put your graffiti up in an honest way, but there is a reason that graffiti artists scurry away like thieves trying not to get caught.

I'm not saying street art should be protected because it's art, I'm saying it should be left alone. There is a natural cycle with street art where pieces are overwritten and eventually obscured by more pieces, why not let that continue?

__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."

Granted, that covers a LOT of graffiti (that I've seen, at least) but if it's done to actually be art, I don't personally mind. I understand that graffiti artists are vandalizing property, but if it were my building I wouldn't bother spending the time and effort to remove PG graffiti, thus negating one of the complaints regarding it.